DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's current election with traverse of Species B, Fig. 4, claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11-15, in the reply filed on January 13, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the differences between Figs. 4 and 6 that illustrate a reverse flow configuration is the auxiliary air inlet, reference characters 18″ and 18‴ and an explanation stating the two operational flows in a main flow direction and a direction opposed to the main flow direction are diagramed. Examiner appreciations further clarity of Applicant’s invention. The claims selected for examination of the apparatus encompasses the Applicant’s traversal. The requirement is therefore made FINAL. (NOTE: "claim…11[[-15]]" is an apparent typographical error).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“during the system cleaning operation” for consistency in the following:
claim 1 line 19, claim 2 line 5, and claim 11 line 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a system cleaning operation in which the air flows at least partially in a counterflow direction to the main flow direction through the air purification device" in lines 12-13. The claim fails to define the phrase "at least partially" which is ambiguous. The scope is undefined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the at least one electrostatic filter unit is activated or activatable in the system cleaning operation for generating ozone to enrich the air flowing through the electrostatic filter unit with the ozone" in lines 14-16 [emphasis added]. The alternative terms "activated or activatable" make the claim language unclear regarding whether the claim requires generating ozone during the system cleaning operation (i.e., activated) or merely capable of generating ozone (i.e., activatable). Furthermore, these elements are conditional functional element—a device merely capable of producing ozone during cleaning is interpreted as the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the air purification device is configured so that the air does not flow through the at least one filter module in counterflow to a respective local main flow direction of the at least one filter module during system cleaning operation" in lines 17-19. The language of the claim fails to define the phrase "respective local main flow direction of the at least one filter module during system cleaning operation". Claims are interpreted in light of the specification; however, it is improper to import claim limitations that are not part of the claim from the specification. MPEP §§ 2111.01(II), 2173.05(e).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a smaller amount of ozone in a first operating state than in a second operating state" in lines 2-3. The phrase "a smaller amount…than" is relative comparison; however, the claim language fails to provide any operation or structural basis that define the two range limits between the operating states, and therefore is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the phrase "wherein the electrostatic precipitator unit is switchable or switched to the second operating state in the counter flow operation of the air conveying device" in lines 4-5 [emphasis added]. The alternative terms "switchable or switched" make the claim language unclear regarding whether the air conveying device is merely capable of being switched to the second operating state in the counter flow operation of the air conveying device or requires being switched to the second operating state in the counter flow operation of the air conveying device. Furthermore, this recitation is a conditional functional element—an electrostatic precipitator unit capable of merely switching to a second operating state in the counter flow operation of the air conveying device is interpreted as the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Claims 5 and 6 recites the limitations "the electrostatic precipitator unit" in lines 4 and 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The limitation "electrostatic precipitator unit" was not previously recited.
Claim 6 recites the term "closable" in line 7. It is unclear if the term is required or merely makes capable, i.e., the potential to close, making the claim language imprecise. Furthermore, this term is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Claim 11 recites the term "conveyable" in line 10. It is unclear if the term is required or merely makes capable, i.e., the potential to convey, making claim language imprecise.
Claims 2, 4-8, and 11-15 depend from claim 1 and are therefore also indefinite. Furthermore, the term is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dellea (US 20220001323 A1).
For claim 1, Dellea discloses an air purification device for purifying air (Figs 1-7), the air purification device comprising: at least one air filter module (any of reference characters 120, 130, 60, 80, 212, 314 in Figs 1-7 are interpreted as at least one air filter module); at least one raw air inlet for air to be purified (inlet 22); at least one clean air outlet for purified air (outlet 30); and at least one air conveying device (fan 50 and/or valves 28, 30, 86, 88, 208, 210 with control unit/switching device 26; pars [0063], [0065]-[0069], [0079], [0105], [0130], [0134], [0138]) for conveying the air drawn in through the at least one raw air inlet for the air to be purified in a main flow direction and through the at least one air filter module to the at least one clean air outlet for the purified air (par [0066]-[0069]), wherein the air purification device is switchable between an air purification operation, in which the air flows in a main flow direction ([0058]-[0061]; Figs 1-7), and a system cleaning operation in which the air flows at least partially in a counterflow direction to the main flow direction through the air purification device and exits the air purification device through the at least one raw air inlet (Figs. 2-7), and wherein the air purification device is configured so that the air does not flow through the at least one filter module in counterflow to a respective local main flow direction of the at least one filter module during system cleaning operation (Figs 2-7). Dellea does not appear to disclose explicitly the at least one electrostatic filter unit but does teach a particle filter 212 that can capture any precipitated particles, which is inclusive for at least one electrostatic filter ([0140]-[0142], [0146], [0171]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute at least one electrostatic filter for the particle filter 212 because Dellea teaches that the particle filter can capture any precipitated particles, which is inclusive of charged particles, and one of ordinary skill in the art would envisage said particle filter as an electrostatic filter as recited in the claim. The recitation "a system cleaning operation in which the air flows at least partially in a counterflow direction to the main flow direction through the air purification device" in lines 11-13 is an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Dellea is relied upon as indicated above. Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the air purification device is configured so that the air does not flow through air filter modules of the at least one air filter module configured to perform particle or suspended matter separation in counterflow to the respective local main flow direction of the air filter modules configured to perform particle or suspended matter separation during system cleaning operation” that is interpreted as an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Nonetheless, Dellea teaches the air purification device capable of the function as recited.
Regarding claim 4, Dellea is relied upon as indicated above and discloses wherein an air conveying direction of the at least one air conveying device is reversible to perform counter flow operation (Figs 2-7).
Regarding claim 5, Dellea is relied upon as indicated above and further discloses the air purification device wherein the electrostatic filter unit is configured to produce a smaller amount of ozone in a first operating state than in a second operating state (Fig 1), and wherein the electrostatic precipitator unit is switchable or switched to the second operating state in the counter flow operation of the air conveying device (Figs 2-7). NOTE: prior art to Tatsu discloses a reversed blowing direction of the blower fan 1 (arrows 5, 7 in Fig 5).
Regarding claim 6, Dellea is relied upon as indicated above and further discloses wherein at least one filter unit includes the at least one air filter module configured to perform particle separation or the at least one air filter module configured to perform separation of chemical air pollutants is provided downstream of the electrostatic filter unit in the main flow direction (Fig 1), and wherein a flow path of the air from the electrostatic precipitator unit through the at least one filter unit to the clean air outlet is closable (i.e., capable of the ability to close) in counter flow operation (Figs 2-7). The phrase “configured to perform particle separation or the at least one air filter module configured to perform separation of chemical air pollutants is provided downstream of the electrostatic filter unit in the main flow direction” is an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Nonetheless, Dellea teaches the air purification device configured to function as recited.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Dellea is relied upon as indicated above and further discloses wherein the air purification device includes an auxiliary air inlet (at 42 in Figs. 2-7) through which the air is suppliable to the electrostatic filter unit during the system cleaning operation (Claim 7); and wherein the auxiliary air inlet is provided downstream of the electrostatic filter unit in the main flow direction of the air (at 42 in Figs. 2-7).
Regarding claims 12-14, Dellea is relied upon as indicated above. The prior art to Dellea in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method recited in claims 12-14.
NOTE: If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2112.02.
In this particular case, is would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention that prior art to Dellea discloses the method of claim 12-14.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dellea (US 20220001323 A1) in view of Boschert (US 20050169821 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Dellea is relied upon as indicated above and discloses the air purification system according to claim 1. Dellea further discloses wherein the air purification device is configured so that the air enriched with the ozone is conveyable through the at least one raw air inlet of the air purification device into the exhaust air duct arrangement of the room during system cleaning operation (Figs 2-7). Dellea does not appear to teach a vehicle cabin is connected to the at least one raw air inlet of the air purification device by an exhaust air duct arrangement and to the at least one clean air outlet of the air purification device by a clean air duct arrangement. However, Boschert does teach a vehicle cabin (par [0039]), wherein the vehicle cabin is connected to the at least one clean air outlet of the air purification device by a clean air duct arrangement and to the at least one clean air outlet of the air purification device by a clean air duct arrangement(pars [0039]-[0040]; Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the air purification device of Boschert for the air purification system of Dellea in the exhaust duct arrangement of a vehicle since the two air purification systems disclosed in each prior art reference are art-recognized equivalents that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to substitute for removal of pollutants from raw air. See MPEP § 2144.06.
The phrase “configured so that the air enriched with the ozone is conveyable through the at least one raw air inlet of the air purification device into the exhaust air duct arrangement of the room during system cleaning operation” is an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Nonetheless, Dellea teaches the air purification device capable for function and use as recited.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dellea (US 20220001323 A1) in view of Meckler (US 5954577 A).
For claim 15, Dellea is relied upon as indicated above and discloses the air purification system but does not disclose a particular use (i.e., vehicle or aircraft). Meckler is analogous art and discloses a different air purification system and discloses said air purification system for both vehicle and aircraft (Abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the air purification device of Meckler disclosed in vehicle or aircraft for the air purification system of Dellea since the two air purification systems disclosed in each prior art reference are art-recognized equivalents that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to substitute for removal of pollutants from raw air. See MPEP § 2144.06.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should consider the references below in response to this Office Action:
US 20070266855 A1: air plane air purifier housing 1 air flow passageway from an air inlet end 2 through the purifier and then exiting the air outlet end or diffuser 6; switch 20; filtration portion 5; nozzle 8; charcoal filter 19; germicidal portion 3 (ozone, UVC); ionic air purification portion 4; ionizing wires 14; precipitator plates 15.
US 4244712 A: discloses a blower 22, 30, 31; electrostatic air cleaner 23, charcoal filter 24, ozone generator 25, 26, 27 and ozone generating for cleaning, ion generator in a recirculating treatment system and counter air flow; use in vehicle.
US 20230249195 A1: Fig. 6 illustrates a process engineering diagram of a vehicle interior air purification system with an air purification unit.
US 4057405 A: self-cleaning electrostatic precipitator; counter air flow; Fig 2.
US 20020069759 A1: electrostatic stabilizing filter 12, membrane filter 14, electronic ionizer 16 for vehicle ventilation system.
US 6673137 B1: air purifier includes at least one microwave radiation source and at least one ultraviolet radiation source (ozone) to increase the effectiveness of the antimicrobial ions.
JP 2002103959 A: a sterilizer for an automobile air-conditioning; blower fan 1; switching doors 4a & 4b; control unit 13; ozone generator 10; intake 5.
JP H11319063 A: filter 14, ozone lamp 20, ultraviolet lamp 22, fan 16 (reversible).
JP H08243432 A: pre-filter 2, fan 6 (reversely rotating), ionizer 3, dust collecting electrode 4, shutter 8, casing 1, inlet 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
March 18, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776